“The accused is a deeply unsympathetic character with a history of violence.
If the Supremes allow states to deny firearms to those they deem dangerous, then the left-wing states will start figuring out ways to deem all conservatives dangerous.
Domestic abuse restraining orders are not a good judge of whether someone is dangerous because there is no hearing or right of the accused abuser to contest the order. They are granted willy-nilly to anyone who applies for them with no practical judicial review and with no hearing.”
I am hoping that the Court somehow focuses on the procedural issue side of this case and demands some meaningful judicial review. Something like a very prompt mandatory hearing re the actual facts and history of the alleged abuser.
“I am hoping that the Court somehow focuses on the procedural issue side of this case and demands some meaningful judicial review. Something like a very prompt mandatory hearing re the actual facts and history of the alleged abuser.”
That’s the best that could come out of this very dangerous case.
Bad facts make for bad law. Noone on the court wants to say this guy is not violent. But the law they convicted him under is the law that removes guns from people with a domestic violence restraining order, not a law that provides any confidence that he is actually violent or dangerous.
Barrett is familiar with the procedural issue problems with this. Her dissent there came up when people were making inane attacks on her about the ruling and reversing what she said.
She was quite clear that a law attaching to a pro forma procedure could not be used to deny a Constitutionally protected right.